|
Eripsa posted:You know, maybe the profit motive was okay for managing certain kinds of agricultural and industrial systems. But when we're talking about managing the basic social infrastructure it's reasonable to step back and rethinking our approach. Because Facebook is persistent and huge and amazing, but it's not what we would have built for ourselves, and I'm pretty sure we can do a gently caress of a lot better if we just had the proper tools. But how is your tool any different if you permit paid advertisers? People keep asking how your system is going to differ from facebook and you only answer is "It just won't be, OK"
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
Eripsa posted:Yes! Yes! Brilliant! You are following along! *other students jerk to attention with mixture of concern and alarm*
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Eripsa posted:You can share food pictures online, but eating with a person daily will change your habits-- again, not always to bring them into alignment, but always in response to the other. No, we aren't. Because we understand and embrace the distinction between online and offline.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
One of these days we're gonna find out that Eripsa's entire posting career is a long-con study on why people on the internet simply cannot refuse to engage in conversation with a crazy person.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Eripsa posted:Yes! Yes! Brilliant! You are following along! You are such a condescending piece of poo poo. I love how you throw around the word Fascism whenever it suits you as if by invoking it you somehow win the argument. One more thing up there with economics, communications, law... pretty much Social Sciences really, that you clearly just do not understand. Its right up there with you just dropping the word algorithm wheverve you think it might fit in a sentance to seem more technocratic. Seriously. "It disrupts our social organizing algorithms"? What the gently caress does that mean? Do you think that regular people have Social Organizing Algorithms? You are aware that people are not computers right? quote:So: Facebook persists as a functional arm of capitalism, but not because we've constructed it to persist as such. Facebook rises and falls with that capitalist system, and not with our labor. Nevertheless it is only our labor that has constructed it; the problem is not that we've done anything wrong (sharing cat memes is fine!). The problem is that the results of that labor aren't made available for social organization. Obdicut, who has been arguing all thread in the dualism of real and digital life, claims that sharing food with friends on instagram is can influence behavior. This is true, but that influence is radically different from the influence that comes from preparing and eating meals together. You can share food pictures online, but eating with a person daily will change your habits-- again, not always to bring them into alignment, but always in response to the other. Facebook rises and falls with the capitalist system but not with our labor? But our labor constructed it and according to you the only think that keeps facebook in business is our labor, because without us who gives a poo poo about facebook. quote:So I'm saying: when we share pictures of our food, we're expecting the result of this sharing to approximate the sharing that happens when we eat together. That real-world sharing has huge political consequences; what we eat has a huge impact on the economy, and if we are all doing it in coordination it could literally move mountains. And we're doing the best we can to do the same thing online, but that interaction gets broken up and commodified by the social network, not to communicate the most relevant organizing information but instead to maximize profit revenue. Are you a robot? When we share pictures of food we do so because hey, check out this food, not because we expect some beep-boop this will somehow incrementally change how x person things about y food. People do stupid and pointless things for stupid and pointless reasons. quote:You know, maybe the profit motive was okay for managing certain kinds of agricultural and industrial systems. But when we're talking about managing the basic social infrastructure it's reasonable to step back and rethinking our approach. Because Facebook is persistent and huge and amazing, but it's not what we would have built for ourselves, and I'm pretty sure we can do a gently caress of a lot better if we just had the proper tools. Your entire system for your new world changing bullshit is based around the profit motive. Are you somehow oblivious to the fact that you are rewarding people with currency for behavior, which is pretty much the goddamned definition of the profit motive? quote:But how is your tool any different if you permit paid advertisers? People keep asking how your system is going to differ from facebook and you only answer is "It just won't be, OK" It will happily accept child pornography for one thing. That is a pretty big difference from Facebook.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No, we aren't. Because we understand and embrace the distinction between online and offline. Exactly. For example, I made French Dips for the first time last week, and I was pretty proud of myself because they came out really good. So of course I made a post on Facebook about what I made with a link to a similar recipe. But at no point did I think, expect, or want anyone to go and make French Dips that night or the next day. Or the next day. Or ever. Because that's something only an insane person does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:But how is your tool any different if you permit paid advertisers? People keep asking how your system is going to differ from facebook and you only answer is "It just won't be, OK" On existing social networks, advertisers are different from users. Their analytic tools for engaging the network and the likelihood it will be seen is evaluated differently from the content of other users. In Synereo, users will have controls on their membership, and advertisers will have to play the same reputation game that other users play to get their content distributed. Users act like gatekeepers on their communities, and advertisers have to target users for access to those communities, where users know their reputation in that communities depends on these leaks. Maybe some advertisers we like having around and can run successful businesses in our company. Maybe others we chase off and die quickly. All I'm saying is that's for the community to decide.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Eripsa posted:Yes! Yes! Brilliant! You are following along! So is Facebook a functioning community or not? btw, the way you blithely dismiss the KKK and child porn is...offputting, to say the least. Are you really unconcerned that Sharkie fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:But how is your tool any different if you permit paid advertisers? People keep asking how your system is going to differ from facebook and you only answer is "It just won't be, OK" Don't worry, given it allows child porn Eripsa is entirely correct that paid advertising won't be an issue
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No, we aren't. Because we understand and embrace the distinction between online and offline. You do get this, Eripsa? The physicality of another human being in front of you, affecting your world in a measurable way, is inextricably important. A social network will never replace this. It cannot even begin to approximate this. This is why the kind of collective power you are hoping for online is not going to happen. Because the internet is not real life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Eripsa posted:This is not good for people, it's also not good for the planet, and it's also fascism. But I'm being descriptive and explaining how it also disrupts our social organizing algorithms. Hence: it is nonfunctional. I still hope that this is performance art.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Eripsa posted:On existing social networks, advertisers are different from users. Their analytic tools for engaging the network and the likelihood it will be seen is evaluated differently from the content of other users. That isn't an answer. You stated: quote:You know, maybe the profit motive was okay for managing certain kinds of agricultural and industrial systems. But when we're talking about managing the basic social infrastructure it's reasonable to step back and rethinking our approach. Because Facebook is persistent and huge and amazing, but it's not what we would have built for ourselves, and I'm pretty sure we can do a gently caress of a lot better if we just had the proper tools. Your system still employs the profit motive in its entirety. Every single advertiser on your system is still motivated by the profit motive, and in fact, you've actually extended that insofar as your users are motivated by profit in the form of AMP's. At no point in this have you eliminated the Profit Motive or the idea of capitalism. Adar posted:Don't worry, given it allows child porn Eripsa is entirely correct that paid advertising won't be an issue This is a good post.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:*shoots marbles at fishmech* I almost lost consciousness laughing at this Anyway it's becoming clear to me why Strangecoin had all that weird stuff about
I spend a lot of time on Stackoverflow. It's become my Farmville, basically: something lightweight to do while I'm thinking about a real problem. Most - the vast majority - of questions are from rank novice programmers (at least under the tags I follow; some offbeat programming languages attract more sophisticated questions, but a lot less traffic). Novice programmers usually ask simple (often trivial) questions, so they're easy to answer. A cadre of weirdos like me spans the globe, so if you show up and ask a super-basic JavaScript question that's phrased at least well enough to be intelligible (if barely), you're likely to get an answer in under a minute. Yaay! Valuable social service. Now, those novices can upvote, and their upvotes count exactly as much as my upvotes. A novice can upvote as much as they want (unless they trigger one of various fraud-vote detectors; I don't know exactly how that works, but it's a sophisticated system developed over the years - you should spend time in meta.stackoverflow.com). That vaguely corresponds to the idea that everybody should be able to shoot marbles. If things didn't work that way, new community members would have a difficult time participating in a way that encouraged old people like me to help. An important key to the reason that this works is that those points are worth very close to $0. After some point thresholds, some new capabilities are unlocked, but they're not valuable in any other sense. (I've heard people say that a high rep helps when interviewing for a job, but if I were in that situation even my weak lazy ethical sense would force me to disclose that a huge pile of points just means I have a high tolerance for idiots and the clueless, and that any employer who found that trait valuable would be far less attractive to me.) The primary reason I participate is that participation benefits me directly. I'm glad Stackoverflow exists, and I've found it helpful on many occasions (though the number of questions I've asked is tiny compared to the thousands I've answered), but it wouldn't be some sort of life tragedy for me if it went away. It's made me much sharper at the process of conducting superficial "debugging by inspection", and much, much more familiar with aspects of the software systems I use that normally you wouldn't really ever need to know so long as you've got decent software architecture instincts. So I do it only for me, really. A world in which those upclicks have actual meangingful value would introduce immense problems. Right now it doesn't matter that I've got a big pile of rep points. If they were valuable, the system would have to be designed to prevent all the abuse that could stem from me having four or five orders of magnitude more "money" than new users. My community-driven incentives to play nice and upvote "competitors" would drop to zero. There are downvotes in that system to, and I can't imagine what would come of that - and it's a very valuable part of the system. To me, some clear outlines of how any sort of network with a reputation system could withstand the implications of reputation having transferable, meaningful value would be material actually worth exploring and criticizing in this thread. The Strangecoin thread began to get almost interesting with the discussions involving the idea of some sort of actual software prototype, but either I lost interest before that went anywhere or some healing mechanism is cloaking the memory from my awareness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Exactly. For example, I made French Dips for the first time last week, and I was pretty proud of myself because they came out really good. So of course I made a post on Facebook about what I made with a link to a similar recipe. But at no point did I think, expect, or want anyone to go and make French Dips that night or the next day. Or the next day. Or ever. Because that's something only an insane person does. Of course no one thinks about these things consciously. They are still the things that organize us. A collective unconscious, if you will. These same processes in roughly the same form organize ant colonies, and those insects can't really think about anything. But they are sensitive to social conditions and can spontaneously organize a division of labor based on their interaction in a shared environment. The processes that organize human social systems, people understand those processes about as well as the ants do. But the activities that constitute these processes (like sharing pictures or stories) can be more meaningful to people than anything else in the world. People are computers (everything is information, every process is computation), but the things I'm talking about happen at the collective level of human computation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:But how is your tool any different if you permit paid advertisers? People keep asking how your system is going to differ from facebook and you only answer is "It just won't be, OK" The more I read in this thread the less I understand about what Eripsa's proposal actually is in concrete terms. It's like the infinite opposite of an elevator pitch. The closest thing I have to an idea is that it's. . like facebook somehow, but with a bitcoin analogue, and everytime someone refreshes my profile I have to pay them in attention dollars? Or maybe they pay me in attention dollars?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:46
|
|
Can we rename the thread title "why not to major in philosophy"?Eripsa posted:People are computers lol Hieronymous Alloy posted:The more I read in this thread the less I understand about what Eripsa's proposal actually is in concrete terms. It's like the infinite opposite of an elevator pitch. The closest thing I have to an idea is that it's. . like facebook somehow, but with a bitcoin analogue, and everytime someone refreshes my profile I have to pay them in attention dollars? Or maybe they pay me in attention dollars? He doesn't have an idea he just found a startup using a bunch of idiot buzzwords trying to make a social network with no understanding of how that space works, they probably see adding an academic to their "advisors" page or something as valuable. If I had a dime for every social network that started up with the "no ads! you're not the product!" that six months later turned around and reversed that stance (if it continued to exist) because they met the hard cold reality of actually needing money to maintain an infrastructure. down with slavery fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Eripsa posted:
No, they're not, and just stating it doesn't make it true.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Eripsa posted:On existing social networks, advertisers are different from users. Their analytic tools for engaging the network and the likelihood it will be seen is evaluated differently from the content of other users. This is beginning to sound like a "Rational Actor" argument. Do you know how advertising works? What makes a good ad? What is an appropriate ad for a social network? Because I sure as gently caress don't. I don't want to be the arbiter for everything, that sounds like a loving hassle. I hope that on the social networks i use it's someone who's job it is to figure all this out so i can go back to posting photos of my cats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The more I read in this thread the less I understand about what Eripsa's proposal actually is in concrete terms. It's like the infinite opposite of an elevator pitch. The closest thing I have to an idea is that it's. . like facebook somehow, but with a bitcoin analogue, and everytime someone refreshes my profile I have to pay them in attention dollars? Or maybe they pay me in attention dollars? It's kind of amazing at how each of Eripsa's nutbar ideas actually sorta feeds into the other when you think about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
I mean it's all stupid bullshit but you can sorta see some sort of logical consistency assuming you take for granted the initial assumptions about reality that fly in the face of, well, observable reality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Eripsa posted:On existing social networks, advertisers are different from users. Their analytic tools for engaging the network and the likelihood it will be seen is evaluated differently from the content of other users. Oh radical, just like corporations have to abide by the same campaign contribution laws as individuals. It's a level playing field!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
People can be computers in a very limited context (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_computer). That is not the only thing that human beings are. "People are computers" only in the same limited sense that "People are bus drivers" or "People are attorneys." (Some) people are computers (some) of the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Caros posted:Your system still employs the profit motive in its entirety. Every single advertiser on your system is still motivated by the profit motive, and in fact, you've actually extended that insofar as your users are motivated by profit in the form of AMP's. At no point in this have you eliminated the Profit Motive or the idea of capitalism. The claim is not that we've abandoned the profit motive, but only that profit is not the organizing principle for the community. Facebook organizing everything about the service to optimize advertising revenue. Synereo is organizing everything around reputation and community management. I think Synereo could be a very powerful advertising platform for its opportunity to connect communities with shared ends, but that's an entirely foreign advertising model to the one we have now. The more important thing is for people to use it; if there are people, the advertisers will come. You can't shut down an diaspora pod because the code is open source and can be run autonomously anywhere. That doesn't mean you'll ever run into ISIS community organizing when you use the service because the pods can operate in total isolation. There's child porn on the internet, but you tend not to run into it because it stays on its own subnets. Don't get me wrong: child porn is bad and wrong and should be stopped from spreading and actively prevented where possible. But the fact that you are all hysterical about KKK and child porn make you all sound like a CSPAN call in line, goddamn.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:People can be computers in a very limited context (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_computer). That is not the only thing that human beings are. "People are computers" only in the same limited sense that "People are bus drivers" or "People are attorneys." (Some) people are computers (some) of the time. Right, but I'm pretty definite that's not what Eripsa is talking about. Also, it boils human activity down to rational actor-based decision making, which eliminates all emotion, or clouding of judgement. Computers perform calculations according to strict rules and procedures. People don't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Why would I want to ever use a service with a reputation for being used by kiddie porn and nazis?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Eripsa posted:The claim is not that we've abandoned the profit motive, but only that profit is not the organizing principle for the community. Facebook organizing everything about the service to optimize advertising revenue. Synereo is organizing everything around reputation and community management. I think Synereo could be a very powerful advertising platform for its opportunity to connect communities with shared ends, but that's an entirely foreign advertising model to the one we have now. The more important thing is for people to use it; if there are people, the advertisers will come. "Anyone who +REP my post about Diet Cokes gets a free voucher for a 2 liter Coca-cola product of your choice!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:How then will your system function if people can selectively remove themselves from it? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of tracking everything? A small community (neo-Amish colony with smartphones?) could have a self-contained Synereo net which has an internal distribution of clout/attention/whatever but which avoids or resists outside influence. But the natural consequence is that this community and its works would have minimal influence on the outside world. Your Amish colony is physically surrounded by locavore foodies who would love your organic heirloom rutabagas, but they need to rely on inefficient meatspace word-of-mouth to make that discovery. Perhaps the nearby Mennonite clan will have a more open-minded approach to advertising and will thereby capture the community's attention and win the opportunity to fill its bellies. If we apply the principle of charity, I think we'll find that Eripsa's threads have been fairly consistent on the subject of compulsion. To paraphrase very heavily: quote:Ubiquitous behaviour-tracking and constant advertising is necessary in order for a system to effectively discover preferences and allocate resources. We expect that the proposed system (attention marbles, Strangecoin, Synereo) will be successful, and that it will therefore be involved in managing a significant set of resources. This set might even include basic stuff like food, shelter, and mating opportunities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Pesmerga posted:Right, but I'm pretty definite that's not what Eripsa is talking about. Well, yes. And some people can do that kind of calculation about some sorts of problems for limited periods of time -- but most people can't. If people "are" computers, they're very, very bad ones, with bugs crawling through the hardware and a thousand unpatched vulnerabilities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Eripsa posted:Don't get me wrong: child porn is bad and wrong and should be stopped from spreading and actively prevented where possible. But the fact that you are all hysterical about KKK and child porn make you all sound like a CSPAN call in line, goddamn. What if a majority of those who hold the blockchain disagree? Doesn't that make you wrong? Athenian Synereo: equally divided between working groups dedicated to geometry, small unit tactics and the "PYF catamites" discussion group
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Numb Three Ers posted:"Anyone who +REP my post about Diet Cokes gets a free voucher for a 2 liter Coca-cola product of your choice!" *Bans you from my Reo. Naked boys only, n00b! Thus is capitalism overcome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
So I'm sure there are a number of people who didn't read through my wall of text on the last page, and I can't blame them, but I want to bring up one particular flaw that is invasive throughout this whole idea while at the same time being hilarious in its implications for Eripsa's understanding of economics:quote:A token with an inherent value This section early on talks about something that runs through the whole piece, which is that AMP's have an inherent value, also known in economics as Intrinsic Value. Now I'm going to assume you're all idiots here, so apologies if I talk baby to you, but I want to make sure everyone gets this. In economics, specifically when talking about currency there are two main types of value, Intrinsic (or Objective or Inherent), and Subjective. Intrinsic Value largely does not exist in most modern (Non-goldbuggery) economics. While it is true that gold has an Intrinsic numismatic value, that is, the physical gold has value as a commodity, gold itself holds no Intrinsic Value as a currency. There is no objective way to say this much gold is worth X much, because value is subjective when you talk about currency. Subjective Value on the other hand pretty much describes money as we know it. The dollar is worth a dollar because we say it is worth a dollar. If I can buy a dollar worth of gold with the dollar I have, it is because we have agreed that the dollar is worth that much gold. So back to the AMPs. AMPs, like all currency have no inherent value. Moreso than even physical or commodity money which you could still burn, or eat, or turn into jewelry or shoot out of a really big cannon (Rai stones), digital currency like Bitcoin and AMPs are entirely fiat currency. The only value that they have is value that is placed upon them by people willing to trade x for y. The fact the Eripsa either wrote the section about the Inherent value ofAMPs or at the very least looked at it and thought it was okay tells us everything we need to know about how incredibly wrong he is when it comes to economics, and its one of the many reasons that his project will be total vaporware.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:
I agree. The system really needs for everybody to be able to "pay attention", with the (curiously) apt use of the word "pay" now. If those who don't or can't create attention-worthy content (or material or popcorn or whatever they're creating) cannot actually pay, then the system really can't move forward. Paradoxically, if they can, then my intuition at least says that the system is inevitably wildly unstable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
quote:Synereo AMPs: A Voice Amplifier So how is this different from Promoted tweets?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Eripsa posted:On existing social networks, advertisers are different from users. Their analytic tools for engaging the network and the likelihood it will be seen is evaluated differently from the content of other users. So you want to build a system that gives even more power to Social Media Consultants, where they will play an even more vital role. Great.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
emfive posted:I agree. The system really needs for everybody to be able to "pay attention", with the (curiously) apt use of the word "pay" now. If those who don't or can't create attention-worthy content (or material or popcorn or whatever they're creating) cannot actually pay, then the system really can't move forward. Paradoxically, if they can, then my intuition at least says that the system is inevitably wildly unstable. And in tying himself to a real startup that promises to sell a real product (one that a principal has promised will increase in value!) he has stripped himself of one of his most common fallback positions, that this is all just a thought experiment. He's only left himself with 1) These ideas obviously haven't been fully explored, I am the first pioneer to have discovered them and you can't expect me to do all the work 2) It's better! It's just better! Can't you see the status quo sucks! I can't wait until the future gets here! And this is the future! 3) ants ants ants ants ants ants ants
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Eripsa posted:The claim is not that we've abandoned the profit motive, but only that profit is not the organizing principle for the community. Facebook organizing everything about the service to optimize advertising revenue. Synereo is organizing everything around reputation and community management. I think Synereo could be a very powerful advertising platform for its opportunity to connect communities with shared ends, but that's an entirely foreign advertising model to the one we have now. The more important thing is for people to use it; if there are people, the advertisers will come. So you're trivializing the spread of Child Pornography on your Social Media network. Before I say anything else I just want to go on record that I am going to spend an inordinate amount of time making sure that if your service ever does get out of the ground to the point where someone might consider joining, that it becomes known far and wide that one of the developers for said server thinks that child porn is no big deal. You won't even answer a question about whether having Child Pornography on Synereo concerns you at all. Because that is what you are doing here. You are trying to just shrug and pretend that people using your software to disseminate child pornography isn't a big deal since you probably can't do anything to stop them anyways. Its okay if child porn is on S.... (HAHAHAHAHA! I can't remember the loving name. I did a giant piece on it for over an hour, and I can't remember the name that is how loving stupid and non-catchy it is) Synereo (I looked it up) so long as I don't have to see it is not a proper loving response. That out of the way, I'm going to quote you again: quote:You know, maybe the profit motive was okay for managing certain kinds of agricultural and industrial systems. Synereo is still very much about profit motive. Everything you do contributes to your reputation, or to your AMP supply, both of which are effectively profit motivators. The entire thing is still designed entirely around the profit motive, you're just targeting people in a different way that may be better or worse. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too by pretending that you are ending capitalism with your fancy social network that is based entirely around capitalism. Caros fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
emfive posted:To me, some clear outlines of how any sort of network with a reputation system could withstand the implications of reputation having transferable, meaningful value would be material actually worth exploring and criticizing in this thread. Yes I agree, and it doesn't just need to be on my terms. If any other project exploring these issues exists in the literature, please share. I've looked. If I knew any better so would you. quote:So I do it only for me, really. A world in which those upclicks have actual meangingful value would introduce immense problems. Right now it doesn't matter that I've got a big pile of rep points. If they were valuable, the system would have to be designed to prevent all the abuse that could stem from me having four or five orders of magnitude more "money" than new users. My community-driven incentives to play nice and upvote "competitors" would drop to zero. There are downvotes in that system to, and I can't imagine what would come of that - and it's a very valuable part of the system. This is really great: a case study of where individual and community incentives align, how effortlessly productive it can be, and how easily this delicate balance can be disrupted. It obviously still requires development, but the proposed solution is this: reputations are community sensitive. Your rep has value, but not the sort of value that can easily be traded outside of the community where your reputation is different. So when acting inside the subcommunity, you act on the strength of your rep in that subcommunity (with all the authority and influence that brings), but the larger community your reputation is modulated by the influence that subcommunity itself has. If people in the larger community have a high opinion of stack exchange, then a good rep could carry weight in the wider community, but if it's poo poo mountain then no one cares that you're king. This means that trading influence for food is not just a matter of having enough influence, it's also a matter of being a part of the right communities. Which communities? Well, the ones people persistently give food.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Eripsa posted:Yes I agree, and it doesn't just need to be on my terms. If any other project exploring these issues exists in the literature, please share. I've looked. If I knew any better so would you. So the people with the most power are the most popular people in the biggest groups? Pewdiepie has the most Youtube subscribers at over 31 million. Youtube is an incredibly popular community. So what prevents him, or someone like him, from monopolizing all the "Influence?" Edit: Which communities, in your eyes, give the most food?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
How would this be progressive in any way? Wouldn't it just be a titanic echo chamber? If Obama got a Synero account he would be quickly banned from a huge number of communities and none of his words would ever reach those areas except through heavy ideological filtering. We need less of this poo poo on the internet, not more of it. I don't see how your system wouldn't just aggressively perpetuate the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
Note that the actual benefits I accrue from answering simple questions are mostly external to the system. Clearly getting better at solving the problems posed by the questions means I can answer even more questions, but I care about that far less than I care about my own ability to exploit the technologies involved (like, for my day job). If reputation has any meaningful value in any domain, then that can be leveraged into the domain of dollars in my pocket. A black market in Stackoverflow rep points is a ridiculous notion. In a system that has some actual economic or political influence, that's not the case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 20:17
|
|